Let me start by saying that the contents of this post is not very advanced. If you have read the excellent paper ''Batch Compilation, Recompilation, and Plan Caching Issues in SQL Server 2005'', http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/recomp.mspx and understood it, you would already know below, and much more...
I was reading a ...

Is it quicker and/or lower overhead to insert into a heap vs. a clustered table?I don't know. So I decided to do a test. Some background information first:
The test was inspired from a sidebar with Gert-Jan Strik in the open newsgroups. Basically I expressed that a heap doesn't automatically carry lower overhead... just because it is a heap. Now, ...

I got some more feedback (see yesterday's blog post on this) which I now incorporated into sp_indexinfo. See change log at bottom of the article for details.
http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/util_sp_indexinfo.asp

(See my initial blog post for general information about this proc.)
I just updated sp_indexinfo a bit:
I added the schema name as a new column in the output of the first resultset.
I added an optional second resultset with missing index information. This information is obviously drawn from the missing index dynamic management views. ...

I am. I find myself endlessly hunting for index information when working against the various SQL Servers I come in contact with. And, sure, the information is there. You just need to go and get it. This generally means that I start with sp_helpindex. Then some SELECT from sys.indexes. Then some more against sys.partitions and sys.allocation units ...